alternating possession rule-seems quirky

[blewthat]

trying this again in a shorter version:

why does the rule book say that arrow only switches at end of thrown in and violations by opposing team or fouls by either team do not count as end of throw in. I cannot understand why the arrow should not just change as soon as ball is handed to thrower, seems it would be a lot more straightforward.

Anyone have a good explanation?

for example: why are the rules written so that a Tech handed out to Team A while they are trying to bring ball in bounds after held ball means they will keep the arrow? or if they set an illegal screen before ball comes in, they get to keep the arrow?

[Nevadaref]

The rationale is simply that they didn't get to do the throw-in because something else happened which stopped it.

You can like it or not but that is why it is the way it is.


Personally, I'd like to see a team lose the arrow if they foul during the throw-in as well.

[blewthat]

but they did get to do the throw in, the foul would have never occured if the throw in had not been given to them in the first place, at least that is my thought

this post has nothing to do with whether I like the rule, just trying to understand the rule and its reasoning, understanding the rule will help me remember it and enforce it correctly

thanks for any responses

[Nevadaref]

If the player didn't get to throw the ball to someone on the court, then he didn't get to excute the throw-in. All he got to do was hold a ball that you handed to him. Holding does not equate to throwing. JMO.

[tjchamp]

I'll give this a shot. Let's say you have 90 seconds to go in a tie game. Team A has just been awarded an alternating possession throw in. Team b only has 3 team fouls. Now, team a is handed the ball for the throw in and, under you scenario, the arrow has changed. Team b fouls. No harm done as they are still not in the penalty. Except team a has just lost their ap throw in rights. The next ap possession goes to team b.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by tjchamp
I'll give this a shot. Let's say you have 90 seconds to go in a tie game. Team A has just been awarded an alternating possession throw in. Team b only has 3 team fouls. Now, team a is handed the ball for the throw in and, under you scenario, the arrow has changed. Team b fouls. No harm done as they are still not in the penalty. Except team a has just lost their ap throw in rights. The next ap possession goes to team b.

I don't think anyone is advocating this.

What is being asked is "Why is a fould by Team A treated differently than a violation by Team A? Both are actions contrary to the rules, so A should (in the writer's opinion) lose the arrow under both circumstances."

[blewthat]

Originally posted by tjchamp
I'll give this a shot. Let's say you have 90 seconds to go in a tie game. Team A has just been awarded an alternating possession throw in. Team b only has 3 team fouls. Now, team a is handed the ball for the throw in and, under you scenario, the arrow has changed. Team b fouls. No harm done as they are still not in the penalty. Except team a has just lost their ap throw in rights. The next ap possession goes to team b.

I am not sure what the problem is with the above scenario. Why shouldn't they lose the ap rights? if the ball gets in-bounded and they get fouled a second later, now they lose their ap rights, why should it be different if the ball never gets in bounds?

[Back In The Saddle]

The penalty for a T or an illegal screen is clearly defined and does not include loss of the arrow. To include loss of the arrow would be to double-penalize A for no other reason than they happened to be making an AP throw-in when the infraction occurred.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by blewthat
this post has nothing to do with whether I like the rule, just trying to understand the rule and its reasoning, understanding the rule will help me remember it and enforce it correctly

Your posts don't indicate that you're trying to understand the rule. Every time someone presents a point, you're arguing that's not a good reason. The rule is what it is. WE don't need to understand why it's written as it is to enforce it. Simply understand that the arrow doesn't change if a foul occurs prior to the throw-in ending. Otherwise it changes. That's all you need to remember.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Dec 24th, 2005 at 09:46 AM]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

The rule is what it is. I don't need to understand why it's written as it is to enforce it.

Tony, maybe you don't need to understand the "whys and wherefores" but some of us do better if we can fit each detail into a larger construct of theory. I sympathize with blewthat. My mind works the same way.

Ynfortunately, blewthat (wow, so much self-abnegation!), you're not going to get a reasonable rationale for each detail. Whoever wrote the rules originally, and whoever makes the changes is going to have a different view than you or I and there are going to be rules that dont make sense to you and me. One of the things I've had to learn is when to just shut up in a discussion. It's not a fun cup to drink, but there are a lot of good pragmatic reasons to learn how to swallow it. It's even more important at camp. Arguing with an evaluator is fatal. You can afford to ask more questions here, but even here there comes a point where it's fruitless.

I agree with you about the foul/violation on a throw-in, but until I'm on the rules committee, it's not gonna change to suit my situation. So I just memorized the rule as it is, and decided not to spend a lot of time feeling frustrated. I haven't gotten quite that far on fouls and violations during a free throw.

[BktBallRef]

Allow me to change one word to what I really meant to write. Then, read the entire post Juules, not just one statement that you took out of context.

"Your posts don't indicate that you're trying to understand the rule. Every time someone presents a point, you're arguing that's not a good reason. The rule is what it is. WE don't need to understand why it's written as it is to enforce it. Simply understand that the arrow doesn't change if a foul occurs prior to the throw-in ending. Otherwise it changes. That's all you need to remember."

Every time someone offers a reason for the rule, he's arguing the point. He's not looking to understand it IMHO. There are hundreds of rules that we don't know the reason for. Why isn't a player allowed to lift the pivot before dribbling? Why doesn't the basket count on a PC foul? I don't know the "whys" of either, nor do I need to to make the call. Do you?

[Edited by BktBallRef on Dec 24th, 2005 at 09:47 AM]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Every time someone offers a reason for the rule, he's arguing the point. He's not looking to understand it IMHO.

Tony, for some of us, arguing is a path to understanding. I'm sympathizing because I'm totally and completely like this. (See? I'm doing it right now!) I think from reading between the lines just a little, that "blewthat" thinks in ways similar to me. I'm not saying it's a good thing, because sometimes it's not. But I think he's not just arguing out of a childish determination to get his own way, but just out of a sort of natural tendency to use argument as a tool. For many people (including my highly intelligent, sensitive and committed husband, who gets exhausted with my eternal arguments), this is very difficult to get past. It feels like the arguer is constantly on the defensive, or on the offensive!. It feels like constant war. BT and I need to learn how to temper our "explorations" so that we dont come across as aggressive or self-absorbed. But our "arguee's" need to know that it's not just hostility. We are trying to learn and grow. Just not always doing it in the most helpful way.

[blewthat]

just a quick comment

I have no desire to battle with anyone, way to much work to argue over things through this forum. But I posted my replies because I wanted the answers to be thought through a bit more, I wanted to point out that things were not as clear as the person was making them. By pointing that out I was hoping they would give me a better explanation. I was not trying to convince them, they can decided to be convinced if they want, I could care less. I appreciate everyone's comments and I enjoy exploring the rationales behind rules. If you do not enjoy the rationales, you do not need to post anything. This forum works a lot better if we refrain from attacking one another.

no offense intended, hopefully none taken

[Back In The Saddle]

Blewthat,

Like you and Juulie, I learn from exploring ideas. I say stuff sometimes just to see what people will say back. People see things differently than I do and I learn from their responses. And maybe unlike a lot of people, I also learn from the process of writing out something and thinking through the details of a reasoned argument. I think it's all good.

With this question I think you're up against a couple of things. First, I'm not sure much, if any, rationale was ever given by the rulesmakers about why it is the way it is. There was certainly a lot of discussion about the AP when it replaced the jump ball. And I'm guessing that, like most big changes, the little details took some time to work out. We don't often get give a list of reasons why this little change or that was made. We're left to figure it out for ourselves. And sometimes the answer is "just 'cuz."

This is probably not a question most officials have asked themselves. We tend to think in terms of how and when and who, and not so much with the why. So you may be trying to draw on an empty well here. Certainly there are rules that we've discuessed and debated endlessly, but this isn't one of them.

Then there's the voluntary, community-based nature of this place. It's a great place to ask questions. But for answers, you're at the mercy of whomever is around at the time and what they're willing to give. Sometimes people are willing to be drawn further into a discussion, sometimes not. Sometimes you're getting the best guesses of the least qualified of us, 'cuz we happen to be around today. So perhaps there just isn't any more to be elicited. And in a field like officiating, where so much knowledge is passed from person to person, the best answer that may exist is: "This is what I was told."

Then there's the rulesmaking process itself. In the beginning there was one guy with a magic marker and a bit of cardboard and he carefully thought it all through and the rules were perfect. And then the first game was played. Ever since then it's been a morass of "let's do this" and "I don't like this" and "We'll try this for a year and tweak what doesn't work." You've got committees writing rules, input from coaches and ADs and players and officials. There's no single thought process driving it, no clear design. In short, there may be no answer.

Merry Christmas.

[Kelvin green]

There are a couple of reasons:

1) If you have a throw-in you keel the throw-in definitions consistent. Therefore all throw-ins are treated the same no matter if its AP or not.

2) reRead the rule--- Alternating Posession awards the ball for a throw-in. When the rule uses throw-in it always means completed throw-in. (It noes not award possession of the ball) If a team does not get the completed throw- in for whaterver reason, they did not get the alternating possession.

3) A held ball occurs. The rule "rewards" the team with the ball with the arrow. By not letting them complete the throw-in you have taken away a "reward" (read this as now penalized them) because something happened because they could not complete the action they were entitled to. Since they did not completed the entiltled "reward" they keep the arrow until the "reward" is executed. This is only fair. It does prevent from Team B from fouling, taking away the arrow. They would have just gained the advantage-the "reward" of the ball at the next held/jumpball situation.

4) You ask what the difference is between a foul on a throw-in while ball is in mid air and if ball is caught 1 second later. These ae the things we get paid the big bucks for and there are myriads of things that happen in one second.

What's the difference between a foulaway from the play while the ball is in the air on a shot or one second before when the shot was taken. Let's treat all these fouls the same. Wait we did and the rule was changed.

Whats the difference between a push by B1 on A2 before or after the ref hands the ball to A2 on a throw-in. Two different fouls with one the ball OOB (no bonus) and 2 shots and the ball, but hey it was only a second.

What's the difference in a foul that during a live ball there is a push and a second later there is a push but ball has gone thru hoop laying on the floor. (two shots and the ball if no bonus.

I am not sure why you'd be hung up on the rule. Off all the rules in NFHS basketball I would like to change this is not one of them